Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Giving the Governor the Power to Reform Government
Over the legislative interim, I have enjoyed observing the manner in which state agencies are reacting to the series of government modernization reforms approved by the Legislature and the Governor during the last legislative session.
Some agencies react to the challenge of saving taxpayer money in an energetic and positive manner. They are supportive of modernization efforts and seem to take to heart the importance of using technology and best practice to offer better service at a lower cost. Other agencies instinctively resist change and appear desperate to maintain the status quo of antiquated practices. These agencies can resist change by intentionally misinterpreting state statute or simply refusing to meet the requirements of the law.
This naturally presents a dilemma to Oklahoma policy makers. How should policy makers address the fact that agencies can hide behind a team of attorneys and refuse to implement needed changes? And what should occur if an agency refuses to put in place the necessary internal processes to control issues such as corruption and poor service?
Last week I wrote an article about county government's failure to have the appropriate check and balance mechanism necessary to make it difficult for corruption to occur at the county level. I believe that this same deficiency of control mechanisms exists in state government. In too many cases, when an agency refuses to put proper internal controls in place to follow the law, provide quality service and low prices, or prevent corruption, there is little that can be done to check their actions.
In last week's article, I pointed to the city model of governance as an example where professional administration is overseen by the check and balance of citizen oversight. Using that same example, can you imagine an instance where a city manager could not fire a police chief who was responsible for allowing corruption in his department?
In too many cases, this is the problem faced by Oklahoma state government policy makers, because it is very difficult for agency leaders to be removed by a responsible person, such as the Governor. If the Governor were given the power to remove agency directors for acting inappropriately, it would allow the buck to stop at the Governor's desk. If the Governor refused to take action, the people could hold him or her responsible at the next election.
With the exception of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation officials (agencies responsible for investigating political corruption), I believe the Governor should be charged with the task of removing agency directors who have failed to meet their responsibilities to the citizens.
I look forward to supporting this plan for reform during the next legislative session.
Some agencies react to the challenge of saving taxpayer money in an energetic and positive manner. They are supportive of modernization efforts and seem to take to heart the importance of using technology and best practice to offer better service at a lower cost. Other agencies instinctively resist change and appear desperate to maintain the status quo of antiquated practices. These agencies can resist change by intentionally misinterpreting state statute or simply refusing to meet the requirements of the law.
This naturally presents a dilemma to Oklahoma policy makers. How should policy makers address the fact that agencies can hide behind a team of attorneys and refuse to implement needed changes? And what should occur if an agency refuses to put in place the necessary internal processes to control issues such as corruption and poor service?
Last week I wrote an article about county government's failure to have the appropriate check and balance mechanism necessary to make it difficult for corruption to occur at the county level. I believe that this same deficiency of control mechanisms exists in state government. In too many cases, when an agency refuses to put proper internal controls in place to follow the law, provide quality service and low prices, or prevent corruption, there is little that can be done to check their actions.
In last week's article, I pointed to the city model of governance as an example where professional administration is overseen by the check and balance of citizen oversight. Using that same example, can you imagine an instance where a city manager could not fire a police chief who was responsible for allowing corruption in his department?
In too many cases, this is the problem faced by Oklahoma state government policy makers, because it is very difficult for agency leaders to be removed by a responsible person, such as the Governor. If the Governor were given the power to remove agency directors for acting inappropriately, it would allow the buck to stop at the Governor's desk. If the Governor refused to take action, the people could hold him or her responsible at the next election.
With the exception of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation officials (agencies responsible for investigating political corruption), I believe the Governor should be charged with the task of removing agency directors who have failed to meet their responsibilities to the citizens.
I look forward to supporting this plan for reform during the next legislative session.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Reforming Oklahoma County Governance
One piece of legislation I have considered sponsoring for years is an omnibus reform of Oklahoma's county governance structure.
In the past, I have expressed that I feel it is important for a governing board which approves a budget to not have the ability to specifically direct where that money goes. The chances for politicians to engage in corruption and self-serving political pork appropriations are greatly enhanced when the board's ability to set policy and to specifically direct that spending are combined. In past updates, I have written about how Oklahoma legislators are becoming experts at getting around the Constitutional prohibition of this type of conduct.
Over the course of my years as a public official, I have observed that county government is a significant area in Oklahoma governance where these two responsibilities are not sufficiently separated. This blurring of the policy and expenditure power results in county governments which are extremely susceptible to "good old boy" politics where county officials can exert strong political influence over employees and vendors in order to create a small political empire funded by taxpayer dollars.
We can imagine the difficult situation this places those employees in. Should they provide political support for their employer by campaigning and donating? If they refuse to support their boss, will they lose their jobs? What happens if they support the incumbent, and the challenger wins the election?
County government should operate much like the governance model used in city government. A largely uncompensated board of elected citizen county commissioners should have oversight over a professional county manager who has the same education and qualifications as a city manager. This person would be responsible for hiring the county department heads, thus providing for employees a level of protection from political pressure. Much like a city council, the Board of Commissioners would set policy and budget, but have no ability to direct specific expenditure of funds outside of a competitive bid process.
It is important to note that if I decide to pursue this legislation this year, it will not be part of any type of House modernization agenda. This idea is something that I have thought about sponsoring for several years, and I have yet to find the opportunity to advocate for it. Prior to making the decision whether or not sponsor this legislation this year, I would very much appreciate your feedback on this proposal.
In the past, I have expressed that I feel it is important for a governing board which approves a budget to not have the ability to specifically direct where that money goes. The chances for politicians to engage in corruption and self-serving political pork appropriations are greatly enhanced when the board's ability to set policy and to specifically direct that spending are combined. In past updates, I have written about how Oklahoma legislators are becoming experts at getting around the Constitutional prohibition of this type of conduct.
Over the course of my years as a public official, I have observed that county government is a significant area in Oklahoma governance where these two responsibilities are not sufficiently separated. This blurring of the policy and expenditure power results in county governments which are extremely susceptible to "good old boy" politics where county officials can exert strong political influence over employees and vendors in order to create a small political empire funded by taxpayer dollars.
We can imagine the difficult situation this places those employees in. Should they provide political support for their employer by campaigning and donating? If they refuse to support their boss, will they lose their jobs? What happens if they support the incumbent, and the challenger wins the election?
This same pressure will be felt by county vendors. They may be vested in the outcome of an election, based not on the merits of the candidates, but on their ability to continue making money, depending on who wins or loses the election. It is difficult for people to know if a vendor is chosen because of his/her performance, or because he/she is a friend of the official. Public servants and vendors should be allowed to focus on their jobs and provide quality services to taxpayers, instead of being forced to play political games.
County government should operate much like the governance model used in city government. A largely uncompensated board of elected citizen county commissioners should have oversight over a professional county manager who has the same education and qualifications as a city manager. This person would be responsible for hiring the county department heads, thus providing for employees a level of protection from political pressure. Much like a city council, the Board of Commissioners would set policy and budget, but have no ability to direct specific expenditure of funds outside of a competitive bid process.
It is important to note that if I decide to pursue this legislation this year, it will not be part of any type of House modernization agenda. This idea is something that I have thought about sponsoring for several years, and I have yet to find the opportunity to advocate for it. Prior to making the decision whether or not sponsor this legislation this year, I would very much appreciate your feedback on this proposal.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Implementing a Shared Services Policy
A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives Government Modernization Committee conducted an interim study to explore the possibility of realizing taxpayer savings through the implementation of shared services among agencies.
Several state agencies testified at the interim study about their ongoing efforts to streamline and consolidate services, efforts which they state have not only saved the state money, but have also improved service. The goal of the study was to analyze the best practices at agencies currently sharing similar services and see how those concepts could be exported to other agencies.
The opportunity for savings is significant because routine services can be centralized to a single entity that can be more efficient and effective, all at a lower cost. This frees up the agencies to focus on their core missions.
One of the areas in which these shared services could be implemented is that of payroll processing. The committee heard testimony that there are currently about 114 state employees trained to process payrolls, with about 68 full-time employees dedicated to payroll functions across state agencies. According to an official with the Office of State Finance, centralization of payroll services could save as much as $2.6 million in salary and benefits alone—even more, if higher education is included.
The State Department of Tourism testified that they have already begun participating in the shared services model for payroll. A Tourism Department official said the agency has saved an estimated $40,000 per year by working with the Office of State Finance on centralizing the agency’s payroll. In addition to saving money, this reform has also made it easier for the individual employee to be able to ensure his/her payroll is properly reported in a timely manner.
The shared services model should not be limited to items such as payroll. It could also be expanded to areas such as financial services.
It is important to note that the driver of these reforms is the evolution of technology during the past few years. Without the flexibility offered by recent technological advances, the centralization of service would be difficult, if not impossible. It is vital for legislators to realize the savings that can be realized because of technological advances, and we should take advantage of them as soon as possible. This year, I expect to propose legislation which will create a road map to a more aggressive implementation of the shared services model so taxpayer savings will be realized sooner than later.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Implementation of Shared Services
Last year, an omnibus modernization bill (HB 1032), made accessing state services more convenient for vendors and individuals, and could lead to the saving of millions of dollars in taxpayer expenditures.
The bill seeks to recognize that savings have been incurred by those state agencies who have modernized licensing and permitting processes by offering them online. In this way, not only are countless hours and dollars saved by the agencies who have modernized their operations, but hours are saved by the applicants who are no longer compelled to visit the local bureaucracy in order to receive service.
The economic downturn presented Oklahoma policy developers leaders with the necessity of cutting costs and becoming more efficient by adopting better practices for the incorporation of technology. Instead of reducing the level of service, this type of modernization will make accessing government services more convenient than ever before. As legislators, we should view the reduction of government revenue as being an opportunity for the government not only to become leaner but also more user friendly.
These types of technology upgrades should have occurred years ago. However, the lack of a need for cutting costs allowed inefficiency and inconveniences to remain a part of the system for several years.
For instance, applicants for motor vehicle tag renewals were not able to renew their licenses online for many years. Because of House Bill 1032, the Oklahoma Tax Commission is now preparing to offer online renewals of drivers licenses. Not to be outdone and very much concerned about a loss of revenue, Oklahoma tag agents are asking that legislation be placed into law mandating that tag agent operations also be made available online. This is just one example of where a technological improvement that should have happened years ago is now happening not only in state government but with the vendors who provide the service through state government.
The principle of making government more responsive and accessible to citizens should also be used in order to allow this same type of convenience to state agencies. By viewing state agencies as customers and allowing them to take advantage of shared services, it will be easier for agencies to deal with budget reductions by offering them more convenience and freeing them up to focus on their core missions.
The next round of modernization legislation should promote efficiency and savings through the shared use of services between state agencies. This will lead to the breaking down of bureaucratic barriers which unnecessarily wastes so many taxpayer dollars each year. Next week, I intend to write in more detail about some of the plans for enabling these services.
The bill seeks to recognize that savings have been incurred by those state agencies who have modernized licensing and permitting processes by offering them online. In this way, not only are countless hours and dollars saved by the agencies who have modernized their operations, but hours are saved by the applicants who are no longer compelled to visit the local bureaucracy in order to receive service.
The economic downturn presented Oklahoma policy developers leaders with the necessity of cutting costs and becoming more efficient by adopting better practices for the incorporation of technology. Instead of reducing the level of service, this type of modernization will make accessing government services more convenient than ever before. As legislators, we should view the reduction of government revenue as being an opportunity for the government not only to become leaner but also more user friendly.
These types of technology upgrades should have occurred years ago. However, the lack of a need for cutting costs allowed inefficiency and inconveniences to remain a part of the system for several years.
For instance, applicants for motor vehicle tag renewals were not able to renew their licenses online for many years. Because of House Bill 1032, the Oklahoma Tax Commission is now preparing to offer online renewals of drivers licenses. Not to be outdone and very much concerned about a loss of revenue, Oklahoma tag agents are asking that legislation be placed into law mandating that tag agent operations also be made available online. This is just one example of where a technological improvement that should have happened years ago is now happening not only in state government but with the vendors who provide the service through state government.
The principle of making government more responsive and accessible to citizens should also be used in order to allow this same type of convenience to state agencies. By viewing state agencies as customers and allowing them to take advantage of shared services, it will be easier for agencies to deal with budget reductions by offering them more convenience and freeing them up to focus on their core missions.
The next round of modernization legislation should promote efficiency and savings through the shared use of services between state agencies. This will lead to the breaking down of bureaucratic barriers which unnecessarily wastes so many taxpayer dollars each year. Next week, I intend to write in more detail about some of the plans for enabling these services.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Realizing Savings Through the Implementation of a Technology Strategy
Last year as part of the House Modernization agenda, House Bill 1170 introduced the important step of requiring the state Chief Information Officer to consider the incorporation of innovative and low cost technology components in Oklahoma's IT strategy. The bill seeks to recognize the fact that the days of state government being forced to expend millions on expensive licensing agreements are in fact limited.
It is important for us to build on this momentum and advance additional legislation that encourages taxpayer cost-savings through the implementation of low cost technology options. Needless to say, some technology special interest groups may be very opposed to innovative low cost solutions. However across other government entities and inside of private corporations, low cost technology solutions are becoming more and more prevalent as these groups seek to save money.
These types of technology innovations can not only provide cost savings capabilities to state agencies, but also add convenience to those who need to interact with state government. For example, Oklahoma purchasing officers have in the past sometimes been hesitant to engage in private communications with prospective vendors once those vendors were committed to bidding on providing services to state government. Understandably, the purchasing officers did not want to be seen as providing a preference to a specific vendor and did not want to be accused of providing the vendor with information that allowed them to have an inside track on developing a successful bid. This unfortunate communication block may have been responsible for costing the taxpayers money, as other qualified bidders did not compete for state business because they were not sure about the bid details and did not want to risk incurring obligations they could not make a profit on.
Now, however, shared documentation could provide the solution to this type of problem at almost no cost to the state by allowing purchasing officials to respond to vendor inquiries in a public manner through a collaborative application that allows everyone to see the questions and the responses and eases the favoritism concern.
For example, all requests for proposals (RFPs) for contracts could be posted in a series of public collaborative documents with all bid specs having available attachments. Supplementary data such as attendee lists from any relevant public hearings could be posted, along with videos of hearings and RFP presentations. Most importantly, communications with the potential vendors on the RFPs would also be posted.
This type of openness would make it very hard for secret deals to ever be made behind closed doors.
In addition, I believe next year's modernization legislation should enable Oklahoma's Chief Information Officer to encourage a concept known as crowdsourcing. This effort begins when state agencies make sets of data easily available to the public. The use of these data will enable third-party application developers to analyze the data and produce informative applications that will allow the citizens to hold government responsible like never before.
These are some of the concepts I hope we are able to advance with next year's modernization legislation.
It is important for us to build on this momentum and advance additional legislation that encourages taxpayer cost-savings through the implementation of low cost technology options. Needless to say, some technology special interest groups may be very opposed to innovative low cost solutions. However across other government entities and inside of private corporations, low cost technology solutions are becoming more and more prevalent as these groups seek to save money.
These types of technology innovations can not only provide cost savings capabilities to state agencies, but also add convenience to those who need to interact with state government. For example, Oklahoma purchasing officers have in the past sometimes been hesitant to engage in private communications with prospective vendors once those vendors were committed to bidding on providing services to state government. Understandably, the purchasing officers did not want to be seen as providing a preference to a specific vendor and did not want to be accused of providing the vendor with information that allowed them to have an inside track on developing a successful bid. This unfortunate communication block may have been responsible for costing the taxpayers money, as other qualified bidders did not compete for state business because they were not sure about the bid details and did not want to risk incurring obligations they could not make a profit on.
Now, however, shared documentation could provide the solution to this type of problem at almost no cost to the state by allowing purchasing officials to respond to vendor inquiries in a public manner through a collaborative application that allows everyone to see the questions and the responses and eases the favoritism concern.
For example, all requests for proposals (RFPs) for contracts could be posted in a series of public collaborative documents with all bid specs having available attachments. Supplementary data such as attendee lists from any relevant public hearings could be posted, along with videos of hearings and RFP presentations. Most importantly, communications with the potential vendors on the RFPs would also be posted.
This type of openness would make it very hard for secret deals to ever be made behind closed doors.
In addition, I believe next year's modernization legislation should enable Oklahoma's Chief Information Officer to encourage a concept known as crowdsourcing. This effort begins when state agencies make sets of data easily available to the public. The use of these data will enable third-party application developers to analyze the data and produce informative applications that will allow the citizens to hold government responsible like never before.
These are some of the concepts I hope we are able to advance with next year's modernization legislation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)